Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[MakeMineVinyl]

So the vinyl distortions, we are told above, make a sound that is preferred to the digital source file. And yet, when we go to 45rpm, which has LESS of those very same distortions, more like the digital original, we prefer it even more! (cough, cough)

I am going to make one last point before I invoke the blessed ignore button:

There are two types of distortion I am talking about: euphonic distortions such as the ones I graphed above, and distortions which are the result of the medium reaching its limits - the familiar end of side groove distortion is a well known example of the latter.

The euphonic distortions remain roughly the same regardless of speed, but distortions which are a result of the media packing too much information into too little space (such as end of side distortion or a saturating cassette) are quite noticeably lessened or eliminated by speeding the media up, which increases the space available given the same modulation.

That is the main purpose of using a higher speed - to decrease or eliminate the impact of non-euphonic distortion (high order distortion) as a result of the media becoming saturated. Signal to noise ratio, transient response and frequency response are also improved with increasing speed.

Now its obvious you don't care in the least about all this as you seem to enjoy trolling without the slightest attempt to engage in honest discussion. That is unfortunate, but its something I can do something about.

 

[anmpr1]

...too often the digital remasters of much of the old analog recordings have been butchered.

There are at least two issues: one aesthetic and the other economic.

The economic factor is that record companies see 'remasters' (plus hi-rez in its various stagings) as a way to recycle the old catalog, injecting monetary life into a defunct revenue stream. Often there doesn't seem to be any real point to it--from an strictly hi-fidelity standpoint. I've always asked, why would anyone anywhere buy a hi-rez remaster of Hank Williams' Hey Good Lookin'? To me that is the most idiotic thing a Hank Williams fan could do. But evidently someone does want that. It makes them happy, and record companies are happy to sell it to them. We need more happiness in the world, for sure.

Aesthetic factor offers the listener something different than what came before. An artist and/or engineer with access to an original multitrack session can remix as they see fit. Different is not, however, necessarily better.

A case can be made for something like Brian Wilson's mid to late '60s studio work, where he mixed everything down to monophonic, and you really couldn't hear all the stuff he was doing in the studio in the final release. So those raw tapes of his multiple 'takes' are historically interesting--listening to him work at a time when he was peak creative, totally in control of the session, and was working with world class studio musicians. That said, I wouldn't argue that those stereo remasters are 'better', from an artistic standpoint.

 

[pseudoid]

this

It is almost impossible for the consumer to understand, know and then subsequently identify what is going on with their recordings, regardless of whether it is an LP or digit format. Thus, it is probably impossible to expect anyone to definitively state what it is they are even comparing, when they listen to different formats....

I don't know how you could have compiled all of the specific details but I read them like the whole thing was a who-done-it. Thank you.

I am going to make one last point before I invoke the blessed ignore button:...
...but its something I can do something about. IGNORE INVOKED.

Invocation of your 'ignore' button is as irrelevant personal affair as... [errrrr...] how often I change my socks!
I am going to ignore your ignore.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Invocation of your 'ignore' button is as irrelevant personal affair as... [errrrr...] how often I change my socks!
I am going to ignore your ignore.

Doing a publicly serves to let the party know that they have crossed a line.

 

[Don Hills]

It won't. The thing is, the stock amps are bandwidth limited to roll off at 42KHz to prevent errant high frequencies from damaging the head. They make about 125 Watts but I'd be surprised if they even make 5 Watts driving the head with as much as the head can handle. The idea is unlimited headroom- the amps are always loafing. The residual of the class D won't be a concern, but the correct term for that isn't 'ultrasonic', 'RF' is more like it since a typical residual frequency is 500KHz.

The impedance of the head coils rises with frequency, just as it does with tape heads. A "powerful" amp is required because it has enough output voltage swing to get enough current in the head at high frequencies. The actual power dissipated in the head is only a few watts, as you point out.

 

[Newman]

Doing a publicly (threatening to ignore) serves to let the party know that they have crossed a line.

No, that's what doing it privately would serve to achieve.

Doing it publicly is an attempt to humiliate a fellow member in front of other members. Not a good move TBH.

But I do apologise if my use of light sarcasm in post #978 was offensive to you. Perhaps you felt humiliated. Not my intent.

Speaking of my intent, it is not to troll. That accusation should be retracted. My intent should be clear: to subject to rational scrutiny, the many, too-many and various claims of vinyl sonic superiority, one or two of which might have merit, but the vast majority of which are pure sighted-listening-bias fantasy and simply need to be called. But hey, cut me a little slack, okay? After all, this must be the 50th 50-page thread on this forum, and there must be 50 other forums with at least 50 threads of 50+ pages (certainly every forum I frequent, which is not a lot), full of fantasy claims about vinyl sonic superiority, stated as flat-out facts because "I heard it with my own ears so it must be in the sound waves", which is well-known especially in ASR to not be a valid way to investigate the sonic qualities of sound waves. And simply reading the vast repetition of it, never mind challenging or correcting or educating through it all, can be tiring and exasperating. Don't take it personally if it shows from time to time.

In other words, I want to discuss things factually, and with a bit of rigour and a bit of challenge. Speaking of which, I stand by the facts in my post #978. Namely:-

• Audible 'euphonic' harmonic distortions are not preferred to zero audible harmonic distortions.

And any claim that vinyl sounds better than the CD, or even the digital master file, because its distortion pattern and level sounds better than no distortion, is not right. In addition to failing the common-sense test I mentioned, Keith Howard, who is a respectable technical writer on audio topics, has discredited this claim (which harks back to an article by Hiraga in the 1970s). Howard wrote an article that (I suspect) includes sighted listening tests that I wish were more controlled, but the key irrefutable point he makes before his listening tests, and which is independent of his listening tests and derives from earlier research, is this, and I quote: Any device that introduces harmonic distortion on a sinusoidal input will also produce amplitude intermodulation distortion—sum and difference frequencies—on a complex input like a music signal. These intermod components are generally dissonant, and, what's more, they very quickly become the dominant component of the distortion as signal complexity increases. (my emphasis)

No, it doesn't hold up.

On a side note, since the topic was raised of LP45 sounding better than LP33, and a number of reasons given, of which some would be indisputable and others would benefit from more evidence (eg the LP45 reduces only the distortions that sound worst), I need to mention the primary and dominant reason why LP45s typically sound better: because they are hotter. Yes, louder, not just on the peaks but also Leq. But as we all know, doing a listening test comparison without level matching will be biased in favour of the louder one because we can't help preferring it. There are probably countless posts in countless forums which mistakenly exaggerate the superiority of LP45, the dominant cause being something that would disappear if the two were level matched.

cheers and all the best

 

[SIY]

...which harks back to an article by Hiraga in the 1970s...

That right there should light the BS meter.

 

[atmasphere]

The impedance of the head coils rises with frequency, just as it does with tape heads. A "powerful" amp is required because it has enough output voltage swing to get enough current in the head at high frequencies. The actual power dissipated in the head is only a few watts, as you point out.

The impedance curve of the head does not rise as much as you might think. I've seen a good number of loudspeakers that are less flat.

View attachment 209361

This is the distortion spectra of 15ips tape and 331/3 RPM vinyl while playing a 1kHz test tone at their respective reference levels. You will note that the vinyl has a distortion progression of fundamental, 2nd harmonic, 3rd harmonic, 4th harmonic, 5th harmonic etc in descending order, while tape is almost completely devoid of any even order harmonic distortion components.

Generally, if distortion must be present at all, people tend to prefer the presence of even order harmonics. This characteristic is similar to the distortion signature of single ended triode amplifiers. The subjective 'sound' of the presence of these distortion partials is a 'fattening' or 'smoothing' of the sound. Having started my career as a recording engineer, I have had a lot of exposure to master tapes and what I have found is that sometimes the best sounding version is not the master tape, but a copy of it which has been run through a generation of vinyl. Possibly the inclusion of a layer of even order harmonic distortion to the master tape which is itself devoid of these harmonics has something to do with it.

This is mostly true of older recordings pre-digital. I find that I prefer the sound of current digital recordings (good ones at least) as-is rather than a vinyl copy.

Just so you know, the 3rd is treated by the ear the same as the 2nd- it adds to richness (since all forms of distortion are converted to tonality by the ear...).
If the lower ordered harmonics are of sufficient amplitude, they can mask the higher orders. This is how tube amps can sound nice and smooth despite having more higher ordered harmonics (otherwise interpreted by the ear as brightness and harshness).

IOW the opening sentence of the 2nd paragraph above is false, if the harmonic is of sufficient amplitude to mask higher orders (and with tape it often is). Put another way, amps that have a 3rd as their primary harmonic content with mostly odd orders above can sound smoother than SETs, but often more detailed since the higher orders will be seen to fall off at a faster rate. Distortion of course obscures detail.

The tricky bit is knowing how the playback is affecting distortion which it most definitely does. That might be why it can be worth it to pay real money for a proper tonearm; IME the ability of the arm to track the cartridge properly is far more important than what cartridge you have!

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

The impedance curve of the head does not rise as much as you might think. I've seen a good number of loudspeakers that are less flat.

Just so you know, the 3rd is treated by the ear the same as the 2nd- it adds to richness (since all forms of distortion are converted to tonality by the ear...).
If the lower ordered harmonics are of sufficient amplitude, they can mask the higher orders. This is how tube amps can sound nice and smooth despite having more higher ordered harmonics (otherwise interpreted by the ear as brightness and harshness).

IOW the opening sentence of the 2nd paragraph above is false, if the harmonic is of sufficient amplitude to mask higher orders (and with tape it often is). Put another way, amps that have a 3rd as their primary harmonic content with mostly odd orders above can sound smoother than SETs, but often more detailed since the higher orders will be seen to fall off at a faster rate. Distortion of course obscures detail.

The tricky bit is knowing how the playback is affecting distortion which it most definitely does. That might be why it can be worth it to pay real money for a proper tonearm; IME the ability of the arm to track the cartridge properly is far more important than what cartridge you have!

The 3rd harmonic is an octave and a musical 5th above the fundamental. The 2nd is an exact octave above. These distortions don't sound remotely alike; even order harmonics tend to cover up the presence of the odd orders. The ear can tolerate quite a bit more even order harmonic distortion than odd order because of the consonance to the original musical pitch. Odd orders have a much more complex relation to their fundamentals and it gets more messy farther up the order of odd partials. A 'perfect' tape machine will nave no even order harmonic distortion - it is an inherently balanced process. Any even order harmonics which creep in are due to unbalanced bias oscillator/amplifiers or magnetized record heads. The graph I showed was of a vacuum tube Ampex 354 - the small 2nd order blip is due to the vacuum tube input stage.

 

[Newman]

As a public service, I will repost my earlier comment #978 but without the sarcasm.

I thought I was being extremely clear. What I hear is what I hear. I'm not in the habit of posting bullshit for the sake of bullshit.

As long as we keep in mind that “what I hear” is generally not indicative of what is in the sound waves, unless we apply extraordinarily-rare rigour to the listening test. Without that rigour, we will routinely and accidentally post “bullshit”. This is the norm.

…I have a good number of LPs (not 7") which are at 45 RPM and a normal album occupies two discs. These sound noticeably cleaner when directly compared to the same disc at 33 1/3.

…if given a choice I always go for the 45 RPM versions despite the increased cost.

But someone else is busy defending vinyl as sounding so close to digital that the audible differences don’t matter. And yet, when it’s a 45 vs 33 rpm, the difference matters. How come?

…from a purely subjective view, I do prefer the 'sound' of vinyl to a digital file of the same music, at least with older recordings which originated with analog tape. This is undoubtedly due to imperfections in the medium causing euphonic distortions.
… sometimes the best sounding version is not the master tape, but a copy of it which has been run through a generation of vinyl.

So the vinyl distortions, we are told above, make a sound that is preferred to the digital source file. And yet, when we go to 45rpm, which has LESS of those very same distortions, more like the digital original, we prefer it even more. To me, this is inconsistent.

So-called euphonic distortions always fail the common-sense “I wish the live instruments had some more of those euphonic distortions added” test. Even where, hypothetically, a carefully controlled listening experiment were to show this preference for vinyl errors added to clean recordings, there is bound to be something else unlikable in the recording, mixing, mastering, speakers, room or calibration used for the test, that the addition of vinyl errors happens to be masking, in that one particular experiment. We do not wish that live music had vinyl errors added so we could like it more, so the claim that we actually prefer the errors is false. A case of false attribution.

Until people making these claims convincingly demonstrate that they have controlled their personal listening tests for non-sonic biases, those very biases will remain the go-to explanation for their claims. That’s basic science.

cheers

 

[atmasphere]

The 3rd harmonic is an octave and a musical 5th above the fundamental. The 2nd is an exact octave above. These distortions don't sound remotely alike; even order harmonics tend to cover up the presence of the odd orders. The ear can tolerate quite a bit more even order harmonic distortion than odd order because of the consonance to the original musical pitch. Odd orders have a much more complex relation to their fundamentals and it gets more messy farther up the order of odd partials. A 'perfect' tape machine will nave no even order harmonic distortion - it is an inherently balanced process. Any even order harmonics which creep in are due to unbalanced bias oscillator/amplifiers or magnetized record heads. The graph I showed was of a vacuum tube Ampex 354 - the small 2nd order blip is due to the vacuum tube input stage.

I understand what you are saying but your understanding of how the 3rd works isn't quite correct. It really is treated much like the 2nd by the ear (being 2 octaves higher rather than one, as opposed to an octave and a half; there is no 5th involved), as long as its not too high in amplitude, and in tape and amplifiers, it never is. FWIW I've been making fully differential balanced amplifiers for several decades; their primary distortion product (because even orders are cancelled) is of course the 3rd harmonic (reflecting the presence of a cubic non-linearity).

 

[SIY]

I understand what you are saying but your understanding of how the 3rd works isn't quite correct. It really is treated much like the 2nd by the ear (being 2 octaves higher rather than one, as opposed to an octave and a half; there is no 5th involved)…

So you’re saying that the third harmonic of 50 Hz is 200 Hz? Not 150 Hz?

The nice thing about software like @pkane ’s is that you can actually dial in the harmonics and listen to the result-and even do a controlled comparison. That’s a lot better than handwaving and assertion about audibility and preference.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I understand what you are saying but your understanding of how the 3rd works isn't quite correct. It really is treated much like the 2nd by the ear (being 2 octaves higher rather than one, as opposed to an octave and a half; there is no 5th involved), as long as its not too high in amplitude, and in tape and amplifiers, it never is. FWIW I've been making fully differential balanced amplifiers for several decades; their primary distortion product (because even orders are cancelled) is of course the 3rd harmonic (reflecting the presence of a cubic non-linearity

The harmonic overtone series - it is the same in harmonic distortion: Assuming low C as the fundamental, the 3rd harmonic (distortion or otherwise) would be the G below middle C. An octave and a 5th.

This also shows how the upper harmonics can get really harsh. Even the 6th harmonic, even though an even one, contains a 5th. The deviations in cents from 'just intonation' made for the equally tempered scale (blame Bach, not me) are shown at the bottom.

 

[atmasphere]

Harmonic Sequencing​

Name	Fund.	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th
Frequency, Hz	50	100	150	200	250	300	350	400	450
Sequence	+	–	0	+	–	0	+	–	0

So you’re saying that the third harmonic of 50 Hz is 200 Hz? Not 150 Hz?

The nice thing about software like @pkane ’s is that you can actually dial in the harmonics and listen to the result-and even do a controlled comparison. That’s a lot better than handwaving and assertion about audibility and preference.

No, I was saying the 3rd harmonic is 150Hz. I was thinking that was two octaves up and it isn't; my musical training was interfering with my understaning here. Sheesh.

Harmonic Sequencing​

Name	Fund.	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th
Frequency, Hz	50	100	150	200	250	300	350	400	450
Sequence	+	–	0	+	–	0	+	–	0

I like that software idea- I agree, handwaving does not do a lot of good.

 

[MattHooper]

I think you are right to keep a skeptical eye on claims about "euphonic distortions."

However....

So-called euphonic distortions always fail the common-sense “I wish the live instruments had some more of those euphonic distortions added” test.

What that misses is that we are talking about "euphonic distortion" in the context of sound reproduction.

And since sound reproduction rarely sounds like the real thing, and itself can have all sorts of additive and subtractive distortions vs what the real thing sounded like, then the question becomes whether some distortions can be euphonic in sound reproduction. Clearly they can. I've used the example of equalization, which by nature is a distortion of the original signal yet is often used to make reproduced sound 'more pleasing to the ear' (euphonic) (or even "more like the real thing" - e.g. boosting or reducing some frequencies to compensate for mic colorations etc).

Then there are the various distortions associated with things like vinyl and tube amps etc. Personally, however my tube pre-amp is distorting the sound, I have found the distortion to be "euphonic."

 

[beagleman]

I have quite the opposite experience. I still own all my old vinyl LPs - probably 1000 or more - and my old Pioneer PL12D turntable bought new in 1973. Once in a while I dust them off to hear again what it was like in the old days. But I'm disappointed each time I do it and the turntable quickly gets packed away again. Even lossy Spotify sounds unequvically better than vinyl. No contest. The much derided digital remasters of classic albums sound invariably way better to my ears than the original vinyl pressings that I still own. And getting up of the sofa every 20 minutes to change sides gets old very quickly ...

I feel HUGE nostalgia when I play the few dozen vinyl albums I still own, but usually after a few, it feels more like a novelty and I get upset about things that are NOT flawless and ruin the experience.

The overall "sound" it is quite decent, but like a dozen other things mar the experience.

I feel like I am listening TO vinyl, and not directly to the music, as I do with CD, like there is some added layer that ruins the natural sound.
Not horrible, but I guess I keep thinking back, this is why I stayed with CD....

 

[pseudoid]

Then there are the various distortions associated with things like vinyl and tube amps etc. Personally, however my tube pre-amp is distorting the sound, I have found the distortion to be "euphonic."

Euphony = Any agreeable (pleasing and harmonious) sounds
Euphoria = A feeling of great (usually exaggerated) elation.
just come out and say it @MattHooper << You are in a state "euphonic euphoria" ...of the even kind!

 

[MattHooper]

I feel HUGE nostalgia when I play the few dozen vinyl albums I still own, but usually after a few, it feels more like a novelty and I get upset about things that are NOT flawless and ruin the experience.

The overall "sound" it quite decent, but like a dozen other things mar the experience.

I feel like I am listening TO vinyl, and not directly to the music, as I do with CD, like there is some added layer that ruins the natural sound.
Not horrible, but I guess I keep thinking back, this is why I stayed with CD....

I can see that. Your experience makes sense to me.

Listening to records is something I enjoy, but I have never felt compelled to tell anyone else "you really should listen to vinyl." (For reasons just like you cited).

 

[bluefuzz]

The overall "sound" it quite decent, but like a dozen other things mar the experience.

Yes, vinyl sounds, for the most part, perfectly fine and is certainly 'good enough'. If I didn't have a choice I could easily live with it. But I do have a choice and when you actually compare them then pretty much any digital version is obviously better than the vinyl - both sonically and ergonomically. However, I do miss the lazy saturday mornings rummaging through the record bins at my local used vinyl emporium.

 

[beagleman]

Yes, vinyl sounds, for the most part, perfectly fine and is certainly 'good enough'. If I didn't have a choice I could easily live with it. But I do have a choice and when you actually compare them then pretty much any digital version is obviously better than the vinyl - both sonically and ergonomically. However, I do miss the lazy saturday mornings rummaging through the record bins at my local used vinyl emporium.

Yeah, I mean for Years it was all I listened to, and it did sound great for the most part.

But I kept thinking to myself, "If those dozen things could be cured, it would be fantastic sounding and not annoy me",,,,,,,,,,

Well those dozen things WERE partially cured, when I got into open reel and found a batch of old retail made classical tapes, but the tapes had NEW problems, that the vinyl did not.......HISS.............and inconvenience of playback....tapes are a pain to deal with.

Then a few years later....CD came along and at least seemed to cure all the problems of the other 2 media I was into. For most intents, it seemed like the media no longer imparted some big change to the music, that was OBVIOUS to me.